Conan makes a whoopsie

[Umbran]

Seriously, no race, no religion and no politics is a pretty simple rule.

"No race" has never been one of the rules.

The rule is: no real-world religion or politics. Discussions of race often stray into politics, as do discussions of gender equality. When they do, they have to be dealt with.

I note also that we were loosening up a bit well before the OTTers came around, to allow discussions of sexism and racism within the gaming community. And still, we watch those to make sure they stay short of the politics line, and will close them or moderate folks who become too vehement in their delivery.

 

[Umbran]

It occurs to me that I should talk a little about *why* the rules are what they are, as that feeds into what the OP intended to speak about.

Take, as granted, that EN World's basic mission is to be a place where folks talk about RPGs, with a secondary mission to hang out, socialize, and discuss geeky stuff that aren't RPGs, specifically.

Again, take as granted, that the Internet is a wild and woolly place, where a lot of people feel very strongly about a great many things. Also, in text, our ability to express nuance and the parts of human communication that come with body language and vocal tone is extremely limited. And finally, internet pseudo-anonymity brings a great many people on the internet to behave badly, and to care little about their audience.

The rules are there to support EN World in its basic mission. Rule #1 is "Keep it civil" - if discussion ceases to be civil, discussion stops altogether, and the mission fails. The bans on politics and religion are because, on the whole, the internet has proven a really bad place to have civil conversations about those topics. Too many people feel too strongly about them, and they general devolve into name-calling and acrimony. Since most of the time those topics have squat-all to do with RPGs, eliminating them loses us very little, and makes for a handy shortcut to Rule #1.

Now, let's talk about humor for a minute. It is an easily demonstrable fact that beyond some very basic bits (body humor and slapstick, for instance) humor has never been universal among humans. Humor is, instead, context and audience dependent.

So, while I know some folks would prefer that everyone else accept their humor as humor, that is an unrealistic expectation. Then add in the "wild and woolly place with strong feelings" issues, and you start seeing the problem - there's no way you can expect everyone to think what you're saying is a joke, and they are apt to feel very strongly about it if you are trying to joke in the politics and religion (or race, or gender equality) areas.

Such joking may be acceptable among a small group of friends. And sure, you could get an audience for George Carlin, Dennis Leary, Margaret Cho, or Richard Pryor who will accept such a joke, but they are self-selected when they come to watch the show. EN Wold users are *not* selected to all agree on such jokes. So, you can expect them to be an issue. I recommend you use them sparingly, or not at all.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

Now that's more like it. First, let me explain that the no religion/politics thing is something very easy to understand. Now that that's out of the way, we can talk about humor. It's pretty apparent that the toobz make it difficult to obviously convey a joking tone - that's something that can only happen with familiarity. It's also pretty apparent that different people will have different tastes and that the net is a place where many, many different people gather. With all of that said, though, I think it's also pretty apparent that we need to keep in mind that people do, in fact, joke around even on the ol' webby. Assuming the worst right off the bat isn't a practical or fair approach. That's not to say that offense should not be voiced, of course, but it is important to understand that people aren't always trying to offend. Sometimes a joke is just a joke.

 

[Umbran]

Assuming the worst right off the bat isn't a practical or fair approach.

Well, it is not fair for folks to still be suffering under the various -isms, but they still have to. In terms of comparing unfairness, "I got pigeonholed as a jerk on one internet discussion board," is kind of small change, isn't it?

As for practicality - I return to the point of the internet being a wild and woolly place, with lots of people who *are* looking to give offense, or who really just dont' care about others. In terms of risk management, assuming the worst off the bat may well be more practical than you imagine.

That's not to say that offense should not be voiced, of course, but it is important to understand that people aren't always trying to offend. Sometimes a joke is just a joke.

In the 70s and 80s, the big battles were against issues of racism and sexism and such that were overt and intended. Having had some (but not complete) success on that front, folks have also started considering and confronting the cases where the issues are not overt and intended, but present regardless. I mean, I can cause you monetary loss without intending to. I can break your nose without intending to. So, we can expect that you can do other harm without intending to.

Sometimes, a joke was intended as a joke, sure. But sometimes I was only just swinging the wiffle bat around for fun, and I still whacked you in the eye. The question then becomes - how much leeway should one be given? It certainly isn't a question with a clear-cut answer. Some will say that really, you should be allowed to swing the bat around to the fully length of your arms, and anyone in the way should just watch out for themselves. Others will say that this really should be a "no wild swinging" zone. There will be some who figure that, whatever the explicit rules, as a mature adult, you should know better from the start, and be careful until you figure out the local tolerance for things.

So, again, I think we are in the zone where you cannot reasonably expect everyone to take things the same way. All you can expect (around here) is that, however they take it, they keep their responses basically civil. They get to think what they want, in the end.

 

[Deset Gled]

What I don't get is why it's considered 'racist'. Muslims are a part of a Religion, just like Christians are a part of their Religion. If I make a joke about Christians, it isn't a racist joke... so why is making a joke about Muslims considered a racist joke?

While you are correct that jokes about religion are not always racist, this one actually is. The joke was about Ms. Marvel being a polygamist (even though she's actually a 16 year old Jersey girl). The joke was basically saying that since she's Muslim, she must fit the funny stereotypes of those brown people from the other side of the world. That's racist, both by assuming her racial and cultural heritage based off of her religion, and by laughing at that culture.

There are actually a lot of connections between religion and race. Some religions are extremely racially diverse, while others are extremely uniform. By making assumptions about racial and religious connections, it's pretty easy to jump from racist to religionist and back again without much effort.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Kimmel's problem is that they should have known better. Either they should have been running with a delay, if live, to prevent "unfortunate events" from hitting the airwaves, or they aired a segment they edited and reviewed. They'll take a hit, and deserved,y so, the only question is how much.

As for this:

It made it onto the air because most people understood it was totally harmless. The reason it was let go was precicely because it was ludicrous. The kid was being a ham for the camera as kids are wont to do. It's kind of the bit, I imagine. I've never watched Kimmel myself (not since The Man Show anyway) but I can take a good guess as to why they used kids in a segment like that.

I've seen enough neo-Nazi/klan, racist, gay bashing, etc. kids on the news to not take it as given that the kid in question was not espousing the kind of stuff he hears at home as opposed to merely being a doofus. So I can't just give them a pass, here.

It should not have aired.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

Well, it is not fair for folks to still be suffering under the various -isms, but they still have to. In terms of comparing unfairness, "I got pigeonholed as a jerk on one internet discussion board," is kind of small change, isn't it?

Yes, but it's also a largely avoidable thing. I'm not attempting to compare racism and internet morons, either.

As for practicality - I return to the point of the internet being a wild and woolly place, with lots of people who *are* looking to give offense, or who really just dont' care about others. In terms of risk management, assuming the worst off the bat may well be more practical than you imagine.

If one truly desires a place of civil discourse then one should probably not advise assuming the worst - practical or not. One of the sacrifices civility requires is that those expecting it must also display it. If one's first interaction is to be branded a jerkwad for something they said in jest and to have that label placed on them because of an assumption that was made about them then it's hard to see why they'd believe that the place in question was one where civility was truly the goal, no?

Basically, I understand the reason to assume the worst of people. What the people that do assume the worst of people need to understand is that that assumption says quite a bit about them, too, and that what it says is most certainly not 'I'm all about civil discourse'.

Oh, one more thing: When you assume the worst and the person you make that assumption about wasn't intending the worst you place upon them a certain expectation. That label begins to define them and, after some time struggling against a stigma they didn't earn, it's not uncommon for them to become what you said they were. You really can create your own monsters.

In the 70s and 80s, the big battles were against issues of racism and sexism and such that were overt and intended. Having had some (but not complete) success on that front, folks have also started considering and confronting the cases where the issues are not overt and intended, but present regardless. I mean, I can cause you monetary loss without intending to. I can break your nose without intending to. So, we can expect that you can do other harm without intending to.

Sometimes, a joke was intended as a joke, sure. But sometimes I was only just swinging the wiffle bat around for fun, and I still whacked you in the eye. The question then becomes - how much leeway should one be given? It certainly isn't a question with a clear-cut answer. Some will say that really, you should be allowed to swing the bat around to the fully length of your arms, and anyone in the way should just watch out for themselves. Others will say that this really should be a "no wild swinging" zone. There will be some who figure that, whatever the explicit rules, as a mature adult, you should know better from the start, and be careful until you figure out the local tolerance for things.

So, again, I think we are in the zone where you cannot reasonably expect everyone to take things the same way. All you can expect (around here) is that, however they take it, they keep their responses basically civil. They get to think what they want, in the end.

Oh, I would never suggest you can expect people to take things the same way. What I think you can expect - or should be able to, at least - in a place of civil discourse is to not have people immediately assume the worst.

And people do get to think what they want. Unfortunately what I've seen so far has indicated that they tend to think something, refuse to verify their assumption and then put you on ignore. Not ... civil. At all.

I've seen enough neo-Nazi/klan, racist, gay bashing, etc. kids on the news to not take it as given that the kid in question was not espousing the kind of stuff he hears at home as opposed to merely being a doofus. So I can't just give them a pass, here.

It should not have aired.

So now since some people are racist everyone has to be racist? Can't you see how that's unfair to that kid? I guess it doesn't matter, though. He's just some scumbag raised by scumbags ... that you never met.

Part of the problems we see today, IMO, are that people take every damned thing - especially about themselves - waaaay the bleep too seriously. We all need to get over ourselves. We'd all be a lot happier if we did. Think about it: Some kid says something dumb (again, the entire premise of a massively popular television show) and there's actual protests about it. Actual feet in the street over it. Seriously. People are demanding another man be fired over this. Something stupid a kid said. And they didn't stop there, did they? They also march with pictures comparing the man who's show the joke aired on to Adolph Bleeping Hitler. Nobody's complaining about that, though. Nobody has a problem withthat actual defamation, though. Meh, get over yourselves - everyone. Me too.

 

[Umbran]

Yes, but it's also a largely avoidable thing.

Sorry, I don't think I sufficiently connected the dots.

Could they, in theory, avoid the unfairness on you? Yes. But, as a practical matter, attempting to do so may not be in their best interests. If there are enough jerks, or the jerks are really bad, then taking the time to determine each and every case becomes a losing proposition. Then, it is not irrational or impractical to expect folks to have to demonstrate a certain level of goodwill before cutting them slack.

Basically, jerks in the world have taught people to be pretty wary. If, in practice, 90% (or some high percentage) of the time people who start out like jerks turn out to actually be jerks, they'll have learned to not bother with the 10%. They are unlikely to change just because you feel it is unfair.

And to be honest, we get new users all the time who have no problem quickly coming to terms with how EN World works. You guys are kind of an anomaly in that regard, and I suspect your unity of identity as OTTers actually worked against you in this.

If one's first interaction is to be branded a jerkwad for something they said in jest and to have that label placed on them because of an assumption that was made about them then it's hard to see why they'd believe that the place in question was one where civility was truly the goal, no?

Well, here we get to a pertinent point - how much do they care what you think? See above - yes, they may be branding a decent person as a jerk. But, if the odds are against that, then they won't be too worried about it.

What the people that do assume the worst of people need to understand is that that assumption says quite a bit about them, too, and that what it says is most certainly not 'I'm all about civil discourse'.

If you really are all about fairness - If how you behave doesn't say what they think it does, it probably follows that how they behave doesn't necessarily say what you think it does, either. Two way street, and all that.

You tell us what it doesn't say, to you. You don't tell us what it does say, to you. That's leaving things open to interpretation, you know. Given the context, is that what you really want to do?

I posit that what it really says is that they've been burned too often and too badly before to make being open to such initial salvos seem reasonable, to them. That's not inconsistent with being about civility, it simply means they have a higher burden-of-proof threshold than you'd like.

Unfortunately what I've seen so far has indicated that they tend to think something, refuse to verify their assumption and then put you on ignore. Not ... civil. At all.

Dude, do note we have *thousands* of users. How many have actually done this? Are you sure you're not painting with too broad a brush.

In addition, while you may not like it, there's nothing uncivil about choosing who you want to talk to, based on your own reasons. If they find your style unpleasant, for whatever reason, they don't owe it to you to talk with you.

 

[Bedrockgames]

While you are correct that jokes about religion are not always racist, this one actually is. The joke was about Ms. Marvel being a polygamist (even though she's actually a 16 year old Jersey girl). The joke was basically saying that since she's Muslim, she must fit the funny stereotypes of those brown people from the other side of the world. That's racist, both by assuming her racial and cultural heritage based off of her religion, and by laughing at that culture.

I am not sure this is the case though. I do agree a lot of people carry ethnic assumptions when it comes to Islam, but Conan O'brien really doesn't strike me as the sort who does and i didn't see that at work here. I didnt get the impression that he was making any assumptions about her race, so much as he was making assumptions about her marital practices based on her religion. I think it is comparable to a joke about mormon polygamists. In both Islam and Mormonism, polygyny is rare but does (or has) occur (ed) and is accociated with the faiths. In islam it tends to vary considerably by region. There are definitely a ton of incorrect assumptions about this aspect of Islam. Whether targeting a religion for humor is appropriate is another question. Personally, i don't like to belittle peoples' beliefs or lack of beliefs, but i also think it is important that religion be subject to the same criticism and freedom of expression as other institutions. I am always a bit wary though when folks clamp down on comedians for tackling religion for that reason or when they say religion is off limits for critique or humor. I think if you go there, then you potentially lose great works like Life of Brian. At the end of the day though, whether or not the joke was offensive, i think it just wasn't funny and felt like a real lazy effort. It was about as clever as a fart joke.

i cannot speak for muslims. My guess is some will take offense, and some will not. I did study Islam in college as part of my middle east history focus and its a much more complex and interesting faith than many people realize (and a lot of what you see in places like Saudi Arabia are actually newer developments in the religion). One of the good things that these sorts of controversies lead to is an opportunity for people to learn more.

There are actually a lot of connections between religion and race. Some religions are extremely racially diverse, while others are extremely uniform. By making assumptions about racial and religious connections, it's pretty easy to jump from racist to religionist and back again without much effort.

It is worth pointing out that Islam is a racially and ethnically diverse religion. It is also a huge faith that spans much of the globe. It is not limited to the middle east and north africa.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Umbran, this is probably a incredibly stupid question, but what is an OTTer?